Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1042  1043  1044  1045  1046  1047  1048  1049  1050  1051  1052  1053  1054  1055  1056  1057  Next

Comments 52451 to 52500:

  1. The Future We All Want
    Doug@9: When I was a kid, my brainiac Dad and I would sit and have 'techy sessions,' looong before they were known as such! He had a design for a solar-heated house, dug into the north-facing side of a hill (south-facing, for you australopithecenes!), using these things he'd imagined; building "modules' of plywood and foam; now, we call'em SIPS. He envisaged using wind turbines, large batteries, and the use of propane appliances, in order to live 'off-the-grid,' another term that had not yet been invented. He told me how he would design a centalized column, (hollow) which would contain ALL the mechanicals (plumbing, electrical, HVAC) and with easy access on any floor. He had built some crude solar water panels back in the mid 30s, building his parent's a cabin in Foxpark, WY. He said they worked well...so long as the sun shone! They were a single-loop one and unfortunaely, froze. He was way ahaead of his time, and though I dimly was awae how out-in-front he was, he didn't take the ideads much further, and now that I fully realize his genius, it's all gotten really costly! As I can, I'll slowly do a lot of this conversion to my home; just up the road from me is a very reliable and near-constant wind resource....it's called Wyoming!
  2. Big Oil and the Demise of Crude Climate Change Denial
    I read your loaded adjectives & pointed hyperbole & wonder how it's possible you overlooked the 49 NASA Scientists & Astronauts that deplore the "agency's activist stance" toward AGW & use the term "neglecting empirical evidence" that calls CO2's role in GW into question. Select excerpts from the letter: “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.” Do a google: 49 NASA Scientist's letter, read it yourself!
    Moderator Response: [DB] Your comment is off-topic on this thread. As Robert Murphy notes, this was covered on this SkS thread, here. Please post any further comments on that subject there, after acquainting yourself with this site's Comments Policy.
  3. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    #1 mike roddy, I think that the fact we warmed from 1980-2000 whilst SSR increased shows that either the long term cloud feedback is positive, and/or there are other effects such as aerosol direct and indirect effects which can overpower it. add in #6 martin and #8 Eric, there appear to be a number of reasons. Amazonia is a big regions of change, and that's ascribed to aerosol. I also suspect the weather has something to do with it. They say the Australian change is because over that short period it went from dry and clear to wet and cloudy. Over such a short time period the effects of El Nino etc are likely to be quite important as it strongly affects the regional cloudiness distribution. Combine that with aerosol changes and that could perhaps explain the funny patterns even in the presence of a positive cloud feedback. I'm aware of papers detecting positive cloud feedback to temperatures in the short term, but not any that explain these more recent global data.
  4. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    The reason the manipulators can use the latest proaganda tools to influencs their followers is that the followers (voters) and the manipulators have the same short term goals. The followers do not want to pay more for electricity (cap & trade), change their lifestyle (sacrifice anything), feel they are in control of their usually frustraiting lives (no more goverment). The manipulators want to continue to please their "handlers" (Exxon, Koch, ect.) and reap their benefits ($). The long term solution is renewable energy. Short term, fossil fuels must be used until we get to the long term. What if ther was a way to use fossil fuels with zero emissions AND cheaper cost? There is a way. Low cost pure oxygen production being developed right now, to increase efficiency and eliminate pollution and CO2 emissions. Coal & gas & oil burning units (including cars) would have the incentive economically, without gov intervention, to deploy the new technology. The followers would vote with their pocketbooks (also known as the capatalist free market system). It can be done quickly to turn things around.
  5. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    So the Escalator did make the final cut of the program. Congrats to the SkS team!
  6. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    DMCarey @17 - I wouldn't call that a new Monckton Myth. We've debunked economics myths from Monckton many times, here and here for example. If he can get a paper on the subject published by a peer-reviewed journal, we'll have a look at it. The article claims "The paper will be published by the World Federation of Scientists". I hadn't previously heard of that organization, and as far as I know they don't have a peer-reviewed journal, but their climatology panel chariman is Christopher Essex, who is a climate denier, so I guess they would probably be open to publishing Monckton's economic ignorance, if they have a journal to publish it in.
  7. Big Oil and the Demise of Crude Climate Change Denial
    Thanks, Andy S: This is a process that, for those who follow the behind-the-scenes, not-oft-reported-in-the-MSM news, shows how Big Oil, in no particular fealty to the IPCC, couldn't, and can no longer. reject out of hand the data showing that climate change is real, it's beyond likely we've caused it, and what the 'maths' are, as to its consequences. Better late than never, I suppose; however, the "fun" part is to watch what happens to Big Oil's biggest cheerleaders, e.g. the 'denialosphere.' It's long been among BO's loudest and most raucous supporters, and as such, BO's seeming reversal (really just an acknowledgement of the science we all ahve been trying ti illuminate) will cause the fake skeptics heads to ~detonate~ as BO continues on towards their next goal, to corporatize and populaize alternative energy. It could be argued this is a bad or good thing but that's not my point: Mine is to see what happens to the Watts. the Moncktons, the Christys, and the Spencers, as BO begins to actually operate in *precisely* the way the denialists' would least like, i.e., to do SOMETHING towards decarbonising civilisation. Film in 3.... 2.... 1......
  8. Big Oil and the Demise of Crude Climate Change Denial
    As a good example saying one thing yet buying the other, ConocoPhillips has donated ~$500,000 this election cycle, with >90% of which going to Republicans. Similarly, Senator "God won't let climate change happen" Inhofe has received >$500,000 over his career from oil & gas companies, with another ~$200,000 from electric utilities, according to Open Secrets
  9. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    Wili @37: My main point was just to counter the red herring that Al Gore et al. do not "walk the walk" because they fly places. The argument distracts from discussing the essential point that we need to strive for flying (and other activities) that are low-carbon or ideally carbon-neutral, as opposed to eliminating the activity altogether. Jimmy Carter didn't inspire many people when he turned down the thermostat in the White House and put on a sweater, because unfortunately many people aren't willing to undergo what they perceive as sacrifice, and yet the need to reduce energy consumption and GHGs remains. That said, I fully agree with you that there is a large role for individual action, partly for its actual contribution to reducing GHGs and partly just for consciousness-raising about the moral principle that pointless waste is inherently wrong/bad and it endangers the future. Personally, I very rarely fly these days (once in the past decade), and like Jimmy Carter I actually *do* keep my thermostat at 66F in the winter and put on a flannel shirt if I'm chilly, and I have a very energy efficient house with solar panels on the roof, and I've had the same small car since 1992 that gets 33 mpg. In December, thousands of scientists (including some SkS people) will attend the annual AGU (American Geophysical Union) meeting in San Francisco. I wouldn't begrudge most of them for making the trip and benefitting from the exchange of information and networking, as this is how ideas and collaborations are born. But wouldn't it be great if their planes were fueled by carbon-neutral algae-based biofuel?
  10. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    I notice in figure 2 that the area with the highest rate of dimming globally is in Brazil, in the vicinity of Rio, Sao Paulo and Brasillia. I'm wondering if Part 2 of this series will explore why this region of the world is so particularly affected? To the northwest of the area is the region of the Amazon that is being the most deforested, but I'm disinclined to think that is the cause as the tradewinds typically blow to the northwest Also, off topic, I think we've got a new Monckton Myth on our hands
  11. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    I take it that: It is reasonable to say, that the earth's albedo has increased slightly over the noughties, despite the polar amplifications . ?
  12. Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    Kevin It's a fool's game anyway. The only reason we're having to explain a 'lack of warming' is because the 'skeptics' are fixated on a short, contextless range of data. Once all is accounted for, it seems like the atmosphere is being pushed along at 1.8-2C/century. In 10-20 years when sulfates start to dip, we'll learn what a hot year is.
  13. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    wili, there are several problems with your 'each person adds one Hiroshima every ten years' conclusion. I don't know exactly what Hansen said, but you paraphrased it as, 'our ghg emissions are adding the equivalent energy to the atmosphere of 400,000 Hiroshima bombs every day'. Assuming that is accurate I would take it to mean that the accumulated emissions of the human race over the past two hundred years (i.e. increasing atmospheric content from ~280 to ~400 ppm) have had that effect. You then say that the top 1 billion emitters are responsible for 80% of emissions and apparently extrapolate that to their also being responsible for 80% of the 400k hiroshimas... which isn't going to be accurate because humans do not live for 200 years and thus there are huge temporal/demographic factors which you are glossing over. However, if we ignore that and apply your numbers I get; 400,000 Hiroshimas * 80% = 320,000 Hiroshimas 320,000 Hiroshimas / 1,000,000,000 emitters = 0.00032 Hiroshimas per emitter That is a daily factor... for 200 years worth of emissions. To get your '10 years' I assume you are using; 0.00032 * 10 years * 365 days = 1.168 Hiroshima However, that is 10 years worth of heat accumulation caused by 200 years worth of emissions... not 10 years worth of emissions. You can't assign all the 'blame' for heat caused by 200 years worth of accumulated emissions to people living now. The current rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is about 2 ppm per year. Taking myself as an example, 2 ppm * 40 years old * 80% / 1,000,000,0000 other people = 0.000000064 ppm. If we then ignore the logarithmic nature of CO2 forcings (which mean that the warming impact for each increase by a fixed amount decreases as the total value rises) and take the increase from 280 to 400 ppm to be responsible for the 400,000 Hiroshimas we get; 400,000 / (400 - 280) = 3333 Hiroshimas per ppm 3333 * 0.000000064 = 0.0002 Hiroshimas So, by this math, I'd have to live to be 200,000 years old to cause 1 Hiroshima worth of warming.
  14. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    Wili, I'm not against people taking individual action. Only against thinking that anything other than collective action will work.
  15. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    I have hard time understanding the numbers in Fig1, relative to GHG forcings. Firstly, I think the explanation of those numbers in the text is incorrect. For example, while the text sais: "Southern Hemisphere [experienced] a dimming of -2.88 W/m2 per year", the eyeballing of the black trendline on Figure 1b reveals that it cannot be so. It looks more like dSSR=-2.88 is shown for the entire period of the study (2001-2007). If it was -2.88, then it must have been -17.28 over 6 years, which is clearly not the case. Secondly, -2.88W/m2 (or -2.71W/m2 over both NH+SH) is a large forcing. It does overwhelm the net anthropogenic forcing since preindustrial 1750AD (estimated by IPCC in AR4 to be 1.6W/m2), assuming Earth was in rediative equilibrium in 1750AD. Hansen has recently asserted that the current radiative imbalance was +0.5W/m2, because we did warm since 1750AD enough to compensate for just about 1.1W/m2. Now, a new "forcing of the noughties" -2.71W/m2 discussed here, overwhelms the current +0.5W/m2 imbalance, resulting in a substantial negative forcing and cooling, as some commenters (e.g. @2) suggested. What am I missing here? Or maybe the number in question (-2.71W/m2) is not comparable to other climate forcings, and why so?
  16. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    Hello all, this is my first post here. Sorry for my poor english. If there is a decrease in downward solar radiation that must be due either to increase atmospheric absorption or refelction or both . If this is due to reflection there should be a corresponding albedo increase. Is there the case? I have the feeling that CRES results do net show a consistent amlbedo increase but I may be wrong. Anyone to confirm or not? Considering the methods to derive surface solar radiation fron satellite observations et albedo derivations from CERES, I Think the accuracy of CERES measurements is far much better. Without consistant trends in CERES derived albedoes isn't there a sreious doubdt as for the reality of the reported trends?
  17. Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    Tristan: Absolutely correct. However... The trend uncertainty is valid only under the assumption than the underlying model - linear increase plus autocorrelated noise - is valid. Now that's probably not a bad assumption for greenhouse-forced warming over a short period with no volcanoes. However, if we take into account that there has been a transition in where the warming occurs from somewhere which is covered by HadCRUT4 to somewhere that isn't, it becomes problematic. Because GISTEMP largely remediates the coverage issue, the results from GISTEMP are a bit more robust (assuming you start after the end of the Pinatubo dip).
  18. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    John B at #36 said "what I do as an individual has very little effect" So adding the energy equivalent of a Hiroshima bomb to the atmosphere is what you would quantify as "very little"?? (See my post above at #11.) Note that I have not said that no one arguing against emissions should fly. I agree with doug b when he says that some flights to, for example scientific meetings may be worth the added CO2, and certainly flights to do actual studies in, for example, Antarctica may be crucial. But I also agree when he says we should always look for opportunities to do things in other ways. As ranyl points out, there are lots of more energy efficient ways to communicate information across distances than ferrying our bulky bodies in metal birds. Words and images travel much more lightly on the internet or telephone wires. And no, larry, this is not sending us back to the dark ages (which weren't quite as dark as advertised anyway '-). It gets tiresome to have to counter "we might as well live in caves" cliches after every suggestion to modify our behavior so as to be even marginally less ecocidal. We have at this point locked our kids (and pretty much every other living thing) in a flammable, gasoline-soaked house with now windows, doors or other means of escape. The flame has been lit and horrible death and suffering is inescapable for most of them. Is it so much to ask that we each try to think of ways to dump a little less additional gas to the fire tomorrow than we did yesterday? Do we all really hate the future that much?
  19. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    I never see attempts to lower carbon emissions as an individual responsibility. Because what I may do as an individual has very little effect. Any realistic attempt to lower carbon emissions must be collective. And a price on emissions is probably the simplest and most effective collective method to achieve this. It will make flying more expensive, and that means people will do a different cost-benefit analysis before they fly. So some trips that would have been made, will not be made. And some aeroplane modifications that were not cost effective, will become cost effective. Saying that those arguing against emissions should not fly is self defeating. The CEI and Heartland won't feel constrained and will have their conferences and publicity, and get their message out more effectively.
  20. Doug Hutcheson at 18:09 PM on 25 October 2012
    Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    If only the dimming totally compensated for the GHG forcing, then we would only have to deal with less glamorous problems, such as Ocean Acidification and the survival of polar bears. I can just imagine the denialisti crowing about our miraculous self-balancing atmosphere ...
  21. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    A very well written post. I'm thinking that a good deal more time is needed before any trend can be declared, but its great to see this study.
  22. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    Eric (skeptic) - an emerging area of research is that the dimming effect can saturate in highly polluted regions - such as over much of China and India. In heavily polluted areas, once a certain threshold is exceeded, the high concentration of dark-coloured aerosols (such as black carbon) begins to dominate the reflective particles. This darkening absorbs more solar radiation, heats up and evaporates the cloud layers, and therefore reduces cloud lifetime. So one would observe a brightening, or little change, over such regions when concentrations of aerosols increase, and large changes in areas where the atmosphere is far less polluted - such as the Southern Hemisphere. It's a very new area of research, so we'll have to wait and see how it develops. What I'm suggesting is that the dimming of the pristine Southern Hemisphere atmosphere might seem counter-intuitive, but there may be a logical reason for this. Especially if the transfer of the main pollution source to China enables aerosols to reach the Southern Hemisphere via the large-scale atmospheric circulation. Remember the discussion in this SkS article for example?: Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?"
  23. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    Martin - global dimming over the period examined was almost entirely due to aerosol and cloud increases in the Southern Hemisphere. See the text in the boxed areas of Figure 1. This paper does not look at what may have caused the dimming.
  24. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    Doesn't anyone else find this at least a little scary? Looking forward to part 2
  25. Eric (skeptic) at 10:16 AM on 25 October 2012
    Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    Is there an explanation for more dimming in the SH? The paper implies it's due to clouds. Wouldn't there be more ocean thermal inertia in the SH to delay the temperature response?
  26. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    Maybe I didn't explain it enough. I don't have much vocabulary. Moving this to a personal issue is one of their tactics, similar to attacking M. Mann personally, his character, etc, instead of his message. Talking about indivisual's action, what s/he can do or should do, and demand unrealistic, unfair conditions so that the discussions move to uncomfortable, impossible indivisual issues rather than the real ones. It easily becomes one of religious arguments "Who is more pious?". If you're less pious your view don't count. If you don't do enough to reduce carbon foolprint your opinion don't count becasue you must not be serious enough. How can I trust you. Another tactics is to move it to economic ones. They demands the whole total soutions now today otherwise it is not wise to do so or to make things too impossible to do so, or talking about the solutions perpetually with no end in sight. Moving this to impossiblity is one of ways to avoid to talk about it. They'd do anything to avoid to talk about it. Then wait 6 months to bring out the same old arguments again and again. You've got to keep your eye on the basic issues for now. That's my simplton's view.
  27. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    The goal is *not* to curtail air travel and go back to the dark ages. That is what opponents of action on climate change would have us believe, because obviously that is not desirable and would increase opposition to climate action. Rather, the goal is to use our great big brains to make air travel smarter, by making it more efficient and powering it with sustainable, renewable fuels. Boeing's Dreamliner is 20% more fuel efficient than a conventional jet because it is mostly made of carbon fiber rather than aluminum (a general principle for cars, trucks, and aircraft called " lightweighting"). Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic, not to mention the U.S. Military, are committed to developing sustainable fuels for aircraft. Branson announced a low-carbon biofuel made from carbon monoxide (CO) waste from industrial processes, which would normally be flared (i.e., burned to make CO2), and he is also investigating various renewable jet fuels. The U.S. Military has shown that a 50/50 biofuel blend works well in F-22 fighter jets, and a similar fuel has even fueled a giant C-130 transport plane. Fortunately, the U.S. Military sees global warming for the real threat that it is, as they will ultimately be called upon to deal with the National Security aspects of it, such as the social unrest from hundreds of millions of climate refugees fleeing low-lying areas as sea level rises and from encroaching deserts that can no longer sustain humans. The Bottom Line: Al Gore or Bill McKibben's flying is a red herring ("look, squirrel!"), as the real goal is not to eliminate air travel but rather to do it sustainably.
  28. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    "If you are taking airplanes because it is the most effective way to spread vital messages about the need to combat global warming, I think that is perhaps one of the few legitimate uses of that mode of transport. So again, I see most critiques of Gore and others on that point disingenuous, at best. " I don't feel there is any justification warrants hoping on a plane in the current circumstances with the global communication networks and if climate change communicators say no that message would echo much louder than any lecture series given. "We have to organize a global "boycott" of fossil fuels, and that will take a lot of individual as well as social action (and organized non-action)." Agree with you here, and for me the easiest place to start is at home in any way that I can but it is a peicemeal process, such as not flying (easily done), giving up the car (not so easily done, but reducing use is easily done), turning down the thermastat a couple of degree in winter and wearing long-johns (easily done), not showering everyday (easily done), not eating so much meat (easily done), not buying high embodied enrgy items and stuff just for stuff sake (easily done), growing own veg (maybe possible), turning of lights (easily done), using a bike and walking (easily done and health improving), renovating home if have funds (doable and fascinating if you get into it), buying electricity from renewable sources (doable but needs more community thinking to realise equitabel distribution), using as little power as possible (easily doable), and so on, all adds up and let sothers see how easy it can be...but there is a limit to these actiosn where community help is required such as non fossil fuel public transportation etc.... Therefore maybe all climate change communicators should be walking the walk as hard as they can, being examples of the possibility and helping others in everyway possible to do the same? Communities also have to come together to adapt to the inevitable changes coming in terms of flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, preparing for migrations without nationalistic overtones and predjudices, etc, etc,... 350ppm is a long long long long way away, it will be a miracle if humankind can acheive this, but it does seem a goal worth going for, for anything else just seems beyond adaptation even. The addiction it seems to me is not to fossil fuesl but to to the power they produce, and this is a huge amount, equivalent to ~all the wind power in the atmosphere. Powering down is cheap easy and effective and is also a creative and fulfilling process I find. Lets take this seriously, climate changes are occurring at a scarey pace, we already have a massive carbon debt, do we really have the slack to spend billions of tonnes of additonal carbon and incur the additional envrionmental impacts of replacing the car fleet with electric counterparts say, when most travel could be done with public transport and there are vital amenities like hopsitals and flood defences that are likely to need all the carbon emissions we are prepared to risk in the transformation to a truly sustainable and safe..ish future. 350ppm by 2100 means 400ppm peak and before 2020! And thats not counting the permafrost!
  29. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    Air travel is about 5% of CO2 emissions if I remember right, so not insignificant. Air travel can be differentiated. Air travel to scientific meetings is quite likely productive and useful, though every meeting should be scrutinized for utility and impossibility of some other better substitute. There's nascent organizational movement in the direction of not mindlessly jetting around the planet (praise be to the TSA for negative reinforcement). Air travel to Costa Rica for an "eco adventure" seems pretty twisted; please at least don't call it "eco travel." Waltzing around Antarctica as a tourist also is a pretty strikingly ironic posture to adopt.
  30. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    Thanks Chris G for checking on that part of the calculation. Can anyone recheck the rest of the calculation. If you are taking airplanes because it is the most effective way to spread vital messages about the need to combat global warming, I think that is perhaps one of the few legitimate uses of that mode of transport. So again, I see most critiques of Gore and others on that point disingenuous, at best. But saying "air travel is such a small contributor to global warming" and so is not something anyone need worry about is similarly misleading. If I cut used tires into little triangles and burn them by by the bushel in my backyard, it won't wash for me to say, "Oh, but triangular-used-tire-bit incineration is just a small part of pollution in my area." I is the portion of ones own contribution that should be looked at, and the fact of the matter is that there are few legal activities you can participate in that put more CO2 into the air in such a short time than riding in a big metal bird for the minutes it takes to go from ground level to five or six miles high, and from zero mph to about 600 mph. And of course it is a societal problem. But individuals are part of society. It's as if some here are saying that no-one should have participated in the bus boycotts of the south since segregation was a social problem. We have to organize a global "boycott" of fossil fuels, and that will take a lot of individual as well as social action (and organized non-action).
  31. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    Perhaps relevant is Norris 1999, On Trends and Possible Artifacts in Global Ocean Cloud Cover between 1952 and 1995: "Trends in zonal mean total and low cloud cover in 10°-latitude bands between 40°S and 60°N are all positive, and trends in the Southern Hemisphere and Tropics are generally as large or larger than trends in the midlatitude Northern Hemisphere. This argues against attribution of increased cloud cover to increased anthropogenic aerosol." These are ship-based observations - Norris notes that crosschecking with satellite based data will be part of validating these observations.
  32. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    If the southern hemisphere is experiencing increased dimming, does that mean that aerosols have increased there also? If so, what is the source for the increase of aerosols in the southern hemisphere?
  33. What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
    "...(assuming that someone is still paying attention)." I am! I am, Alby! Then again, I'm a complete sucker for a well-spoken scientist....grrrrrrr...;) I've come to the realization, esp. after watching Frontline a few nights ago, that the *only* thing we can do, as those who follow, interpret, and understand the data, is to keep on refuting it, time and time and time, after immeasureable TIME again. Dale can continue to try, but, IMHO, to those who lurk or those whoa re jsut quiet (real) skeptics, the constant and calm debunking of the Dales of the world is what will win the day. I hope....
  34. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    mwsmith12 @2, Model runs made without GHGs suggest that global temperatures should have decreased if only natural variability is taken into account (see image below). This is even more so for the naughts given the prolonged solar minimum and the increased aerosol loading. Yet, because of the positive radiative imbalance/forcing from anthropogenic greenhouses gases, temperatures and energy in the climate system have continued to increase. [Source]
  35. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    mwsmith12 - Global surface temperatures in the noughties warmed, albeit slightly, that's why that sentence is constructed so. There is no expectation that it should have cooled given that the oceans, the repository of over 90% of global warming, have indeed warmed substantially through the noughties - save for a period 2004-2008. In other words; part of the trend in global surface temperatures is due to the burial of heat in the subsurface ocean during the La Nina-dominant period in the latter part of that decade, and the hiatus in ocean warming between 2004-2008. This will become apparent in later posts.
  36. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    Mike Roddy - the indirect effect of aerosols, i.e. their capacity to modify cloud characteristics, is far greater than their direct effect - the absorbing or scattering of sunlight, by the presence of aerosols themselves. This has been borne out by aircraft-based observations over the last few decades. The fact that aerosols did in fact increase over this period, suggests they played a part in this dimming trend. How much we don't yet know. Lindzen? - does his hypothesis predict dimming, brightening, dimming? Note also the solar trend during this period. Aside from the energetics problem, the solar trend make his idea untenable. Changes in human-made aerosol composition, and emission, at least match the dimming/brightening observations. I'll discuss more of this in upcoming posts, this post is focused on the results of the Hatzianastassiou paper.
  37. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    "a slower rate of warming of the surface ocean and global surface temperatures should have occurred in the noughties." That's what actually happened in the noughties, yes? But how do you know a slower rate of warming should have occurred, and not cooling?
  38. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    Since air travel is such a small contributor to global CO2 emissions when compared with electrical generation, ground transportation, industry and agriculture that it seems to be a bit silly to require that all climate activists stop traveling by air. What about ocean transportation? Consider all that bunker fuel burned to deliver coal and oil around the world. When James Hansen shows up at a coal power plant in Great Britain do you suppose he did not get there by air? Bill Mckibben is one of the most energetic activists in the US and he is currently on a big campaign that will take him to most of our major cities and college campuses. He freely admits that to do his work he must travel by air. I wonder why Gore gets all the criticism for air travel? Could it be due to the success of the politically motivated anti-science organizations mentioned in the Frontline piece like the Heartland Institute? Gore is a name that seems to easily get Jasper and Eustis off the tractor and into the streets to protest. But the climate activists use this technique too. Mckibben likes to use Exxon to enflame the public. But the politics is not about party affiliation it is strictly about government action on climate change. Look how quickly the money and power moved against Bob Inglis in the 2010 midterm election. All he said was, “climate change is real.” That was enough for the Republican power brokers. He had been a respectable Republican for many years but that didn’t matter after those fatal words. Anyone who thinks bipartisan effort is possible with this issue is mistaken. Anyone who thinks that just because some majority of folks in the US thinks climate change is real, means that political action is possible is mistaken. The fossil fuel funded conservative influence to control thought and opinion is powerful. It is so transparent that it is laughable yet it is so tragically effective. I thought Frontline did a good job of laying out the history of the politically motivated opposition to any government action to reduce CO2 emissions in the US. They covered pretty much all the important events that have led up to the current situation. I was troubled a bit by the climate scientist who admitted that the opposition to any realistic solution was overwhelming and he just wanted to be able to say he had done his best to warn the public. I wonder if that will help when he talks to his grandkids about their future. I get that sick feeling in my stomach when I think about my grandkids. We all know this will not be easy. We have to change everything: power generation, all forms of transportation, agriculture and industry. It is nothing like CFC’s. We had an easy substitute for that, it is having unintended consequences, but the ozone holes are slowly getting smaller so far. It is nothing like acid rain. AGW is a gargantuan problem and we sure don’t need anti-science politically motivated supporters of the fossil fuel industry confusing things. It is hard enough. Even African nations that have suffered tragic droughts from climate change cannot stop themselves from developing oil resources once they are discovered. If our problems were just confined to disruptions to the carbon cycle and an overheating planet that would definitely be enough but they are not. We are not even that lucky. I won’t list all the others here but we humans have really built a lot of booby traps into our marvelous civilization.
  39. Global Dimming in the Hottest Decade
    If the effect of cloud dimming is now considered by the authors to be far greater than that of aerosols, does this mean that Cox's work is less important than we thought? How do Lindzen's theories fit into this paper? Since overall warming will result in more water vapor and dimming, will the .52 w/sqm negative feedback cited during the 2000's increase in the future, offsetting a substantial portion of forcing from emissions?
  40. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    Energy Imbalance http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget.html 510,000,000 square km = 510,000,000,000,000 square meters 0.58 W/m^2 = 0.58 J/m^2/s 295,000,000,000,000 J/s = 2.95 x 10^14J/s Little Boy ~= 6.3 × 10^13 joules 4.6 bombs/s ? Yeah, about 400,000 bombs/day
  41. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    Glenn, on the IQ test: I have to disagree that it is a good idea, or would even achieve the objective. Plenty of the deniers are actually highly intelligent (clearly more than 1 std dev above the mean); but, they refuse to accept information contrary to what they want to believe. Singer, Lindzen, Curry, etc. are all highly intelligent; that does not imply they are right. Who knows, maybe even "legitimate rape" Akin would pass that test. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to be a good leader. You do have to be able to know your own limitations, and be able to choose who to believe rationally, without predisposition to those who tell you want you want to hear. Maybe that is the rub of what I'm trying to say; high intelligence and rational behavior do not always correlate. In any event, it is a mistake to assume that those with whom you disagree are stupid, or that smart people always come to the same conclusion. I was pleased to see the escalator; I'm not sure that credit was given where it was due. But, that is small potatoes relative to making the point that it makes.
  42. Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    Just so I didn't completely waste my time, I am reposting a comment I made to the online version of this Mail story which they have not posted. I think analogies such as these are useful because the general public are too easy too fool with the disinformation that Rose keeps churning out. The video mentioned is that: "Nasa video shows Earth's changing temperature from 1880 to present" which to us appears so clear... _________________________________________ "The video shows the true situation better than any words. It blindingly obviously shows that although global surface temperatures vary a lot year to year and country to country, over decades, the overall warming trend is clearly visible, most dramatically in the Arctic region. It clearly shows the big problem with David Rose's cherry picked start dates that badly misrepresent the true situation. Imagine, Mr Rose, you are on a beach at a place with a high tidal range. As the waves break 40 feet up and down the beach over one minute you are constantly pointing out when the water goes down the beach and biasing your trend lines to claim that the tide is going out - meanwhile the tide is actually slowly coming up at half an inch a minute. You are suggesting there is no danger but if you stay where you are on the beach, you will drown - and everybody else too. Natural climate variation is big like waves but CYCLIC. Global warming is small, like the tides but cumulatively more dangerous"
  43. Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    Tristan @33, Here are the full set of statistics for the period 1995 through 2012 for HadCRUT4: Trend: 0.097 ±0.113 °C/decade (2σ) β=0.0097464 σw=0.0016980 ν=11.093 σc=σw√ν=0.0056555 What is interesting is the trend for the UAH satellite data run by "skeptics" Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christy, their data show the strongest warming of all the products for 1995-2012: Trend: 0.121 ±0.191 °C/decade (2σ) β=0.012135 σw=0.0023288 ν=16.855 σc=σw√ν=0.0095612 One has to wonder why the "skeptics" are using the surface temperature data from a group that they continuously accuse of "fudging" the data, when they can use a "superior" (as claimed by "skeptics") product generated by "skeptics"? Well, the answer to that is very easy..... ;)
  44. Philippe Chantreau at 02:10 AM on 25 October 2012
    Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    "flying is one of the most intensive fossil carbon emitting activities" That's another "look, squirrel!" argument. Coal burning electricity generation is the biggest problem and will remain thus until industrial scale coal burning is eradicated. That may not happen until it runs out, in which case we are in a heap of trouble. If ground transportation and electricity generation can be freed from fossil fuels, we have a chance to avert drastic changes, regardless of what is done with air transportation.
  45. Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    Skepticalscience trend calculator has zero within the confidence interval from 1995 using HadCRUT4. Tamino suggested a while ago that given the noise and the trend, 17 years is around the threshold at which we should always (95%) see a significant positive trend in the surface data. Combined, it suggests that the past 17 years has been unusually noisy.
  46. What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
    Just to set the record straight on some of Dale's misconceptions (assuming that someone is still paying attention). 1) Dale @33 claimed that, "But what we're talking about in this article is attribution, ie: how much ice melt did the storm or underlying conditions cause? He seems to have misunderstood the intent of the post, or is trying to reframe the argument to fit his narrative. Either way, the above statement misses the point of the post. 2) Dale @44 claimed that, "....and no conclusion of increasing frequency or intensity of storms over time can be made." That is not correct and misrepresents the content of the post, I suggest Dale reads it again . Some studies have found evidence of increasing frequency and/or intensity of Arctic Basin storms (e.g., Hakkinen et al. 2008) over a 50-yre period. In contrast, Screen et al. (2011) found no evidence for an increase in frequency of Arctic storms over the satellite era, but they did find evidence of an increase in the intensity of storms. Again, this is all stated in the main post. Long and Perrie (2012) have even proposed a theoretical mechanism that may be causing this increase in the intensity of storms, and it has to do with the loss of sea ice exposing more open water. 3) Just a general comment. Screen et al. (2011) found that it was the cyclone activity early in the spring (May through July) that that is critical in determining the final minimum extent. The storm of 2012 occurred in August. So that fact right away casts doubt on the claim being made by "skeptics" that this event was responsible for the record low.
  47. What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum?
    Bob Loblaw (multiple posts), Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful analysis and commentary. Thanks too to others who have provided constructive commentary on this. Dale made some incorrect claims and I'll address one or more of them in the next post.
  48. Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    Kevin @16, Great work! Very interesting.
  49. Rose and Curry Double Down on Global Warming Denial
    The following post by John Brookes at Tamino's nicely exposes (from a slightly different angle) the game being played by the disingenuous likes of Curry and Rose et al. (my bolding): "My suggestion is that we insist that “No significant warming since xxxx” should always have to use 1995 as the starting date, as I’m sure we all recall when Phil Jones was forced to concede that there had not been statistically significant since 1995. It was good enough for the “skeptics” then. It should be good enough for them now." So the fake skeptics have again shifted the goal posts and 1997 becomes the new cherry-pick. They can play this disingenuous game indefinitely.....but not if we hold them to 1995, for example. Has anyone asked Curry why she supports the use of 1997 as a start date versus 1995 when using the HadCRUT data?
  50. Climate of Doubt and Escalator Updates
    Please do not make this a personal issue. This is a social issue. This is a geo-social issue that needs corrective actions from every nation around the world. Making this a personal issue is one of their tactics so that nobody wants to force on themselves indivisually. Only thing each indivisual has to do is to admit AGW is real and happening now. Nobody would have to buy a hybrid car with 59 hp or paint our roof white if they admit/agree. It is a social policy issue. Even if all agree, we will not be able to realistically, practically do drastic things. There will still be the fuel fossil industries and other geo-political, economic factors. Let's get the first thing first. Let's get the majority admit it's real and happening now so that the policy makers wouldn't have to be pressured to say otherwise, so that all those green technologies will be more accetable to people and that would mean better economic advantages, oppertunities for the industries.

Prev  1042  1043  1044  1045  1046  1047  1048  1049  1050  1051  1052  1053  1054  1055  1056  1057  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us